The evil of soft drink companies

Today I went to hear Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim talk about their new book Why Calories Count. I'll write more about the book when I finish it, but I wanted to share a tidbit now.

Marion mentioned this interview with a Coke executive in USA Today. It's a fabulous bit of bullexcrement, full of quotes like this:

"Our responsibility is to provide drink in all the sizes that consumers might need."

Nobody, NOBODY needs sugary soft drinks.

There are a lot of things we do not need. There are a lot of things we want. As long as we count the calories, who is to say what we can have?

I think Hoser's point is that the exec said that they have all of those huge sizes because people NEED them. Yes, people may very well want them, but they certainly don't NEED them.

I tend to agree with Coke on that one, or at least to disagree with Bloomberg. It is not the government business to decide how much people should drink or eat, I do not like the theory that puts all the responsibilities in the hands of an illuminated elite and none on the shoulders of the individual.
Then of course coke managers answer to defend their interests
The book seems interesting.

Of course it's up to the individual as far as whether or not they choose to buy the product and which size they choose - it's not about placing the blame 100% on the corporation.. but we are a society that is focused on getting the very most for our money, so when some consumers see the possibility of getting a 64 oz soda for only 5 cents more than a 20 oz (just a random number as an example, please don't google beverage prices), they jump on that great deal! Yes, they should stop and realize that they are drinking over 700 calories, but instead they just think about the "awesome deal" they just got..

Yeah, you can get all argumentative about "I have the right to decide what I can and can't have" - and if so, I have 2 words for you... gay marriage.

Gotta love opening up a new can of worms...

i also think that it cannot be wholly blamed to the corporation, it's a person's choice whether he will buy the product. And it's our responsibility to care about our health. I cut my soda consumption to only one coke in can a week,and for the rest of the week, i just use Natvia natural sweetener for my juice and tea drinks.

In the business world it's all about money and not morality. Big business doesnt give a s##t if the crap they sell promotes unhealthiness (fast food and cigarette companies especially). They only care about the bottom line. And with people not caring about the food they stuff in their pie-holes, it's all fine and dandy with them. These folks add to the supply and demand... the masses get their unhealthy crap (that can taste so great) and the companies get fatter in revenue. It's pretty sad really. I'm glad I'm not one of those folks. Eff that. AND EFF CORRUPT BOXING JUDGES. gahdammit.

^yeah right! corrupt boxing judges! what a shocking result. :/

back to topic, we can't do anything with these businesses (fast food, corp etc) so let's just monitor our diets especially the kids'.

Agreed. We're blessed to have the neo-cortex. So let's use the damn thing to make better decisions for ourselves. Do I want to die of diabetes or heart disease because I choose to drink sugary softdrinks with empty calories and fast food with excessive amounts of carbohydrates, saturated fat, and other highly processed junk? Neo-cortex says: "No, thank you. I'd like to be able to chase my great grandkids around someday."

To me the Coke executive sounds a lot like cigarette executives used to (and to some extent still do). "Our products don't harm anyone. They're beneficial to our customers."

But nobody makes us drink the soda. We choose what to put in our mouths. Twinkies aren't healthy either, beer, chips, sugar, potatoes, --- I mean really anything in large quantities can be a negative thing. I didn't grow up drinking soda or eating junk food - Mom did not allow that! Guess what, I still ended up over 200 lbs. Americans are always looking to put the blame on someone or something. This is free country and if I want to drink 32 oz. coke with my burger and fries I should be allowed to. (Note: I don't eat red meat or fries or coke, but if I wanted to...)

But like CJT1217 said, businesses don't care if their products harm, they are only interested in profit. They market this crap to children and there are enough niave people out there who will buy it for their kids believing that it is safe. I watched Jamie Olivers Food Revolution a few years ago and it was amazing how much resistance he got to intoducing healthy food into school lunches, both in England and the US. And not just from the kids but the parents as well. Would it be all right to market cigarettes or alcohol to children? A certian amount of government regulation is necessary as corporations will not regulate themselves.

maybe they needed the jumbo pop to share between 4 people? jk. i get your point - it's not a thing we 'need' to have available. but i personally fall on the side of free-will and the choice of the people. can't legislate morality or health, all we can do is educate, inform, and hope people can make good choices.

To some extent, we *can* legislate health.

We establish safety standards for all sorts of consumer products-- automobiles, clothing, toys, etc. We regulate and tax cigarettes and alcohol. We have safety standards for food and drinking water.

Most amazingly, the US government subsidizes refined sugar through the abomination that we call the farm bill. Yes, you the American taxpayer[1] spend part of every dollar that you make on ensuring that there's lots of cheap refined sugar available to food manufacturers. To me that's just ludicrous-- we know refined sugar is unhealthy in large quantities, but we still subsidize it.

I'm all for ensuring that the nation has enough food, and making sure that people can afford to eat. I don't think subsidizing sugary soft drinks is the right thing to do, though.

Speaking of subsidies, here is an article about what if the white house vegetable garden was planted with subsidized crops instead of healthy veggies. Notice that tabacco is still subsidized -- with tax payer $$$.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/white-house-garden-subsidized-crops_n_869616.html

I don't necessarily think that government should be regulating what we eat and drink, but I think if the companies didn't make huge sizes of things people would just get used to it. McDonald's large drink used to be what I think is a medium now, and did it bother us at the time, no, because we were used to having it that size. Now, if they reduced the size of a large back to a medium people would complain because they felt cheated or I'm sure have many other arguments, but eventually we'd all just get used to it and it would be normal again. I think if companies didn't have to "upgrade" everything to make a few more bucks it wouldn't be as tempting to buy that King size candy bar vs. a regular. Then, if you're buying 2 candy bars instead of one regular one that's on you. I know that I've become a junk food addict over the years and it hasn't helped that portions and/or sizes of foods and drinks have gotten bigger or there is the option of bigger. These companies just need to leave things alone and stop feeling the need to make everything bigger, WE DO NOT "NEED" IT.

I agree with those who think farm subsidies are an abomination, albeit not necessarily for the same reasons.
The government should not regulate lives, first because they do not "know better" despite what some people think, secondly because regulation would be most likely ineffective and expensive.
You cannot force an healthy lifestyle on people, and I would also argue that you should not.